Truely universal time and distance

[Davros]

XXX are you seriously saying that the spinning ball travels downwards faster than the non spinning ball (as the web site says)
the evidence is right in front of you in the picture
plus you wont or cant answer my questions
and heres another one for ya
"Air drag is rather irrelevant with this weight/speed" I disagree and beleive i can prove it, can you prove what you claim I bet you dont

 

[_xxx_]

I am not saying anything, you were the one who wanted to try the experiment. I haven't tried it myself so I simply don't know. I'm just open to the possibility.

Air drag is rather easy to calculate and when you do, you'll see that in case of a pinball it's almost negligible. Regardless, when you read carefully you may notice that I did NOT rule it out and thus proposed vacuum to prove if that has any significant influence. It might prove me wrong just as well.

 

[pcchen]

Back in 1989, two Japanese scientists made a claim that a spinning gyro somehow "lose weight," similar to what you describe here. However, subsequent experiments done by others do not show this.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-experiments-weaken-japanese-gyro-claim-.html

And this paper

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/343509a0

suggests that the "lose weight" may caused by errors when weighting with vibrations.

Another more conclusive investigation about this is here:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6820m4638757646/

The basic rule of scientific study is, when you found something new, you need to make sure that you didn't make any mistakes. That's why we need peer-reviewed journals. Even the most brilliant team may fail to notice something that could invalidate the result of an experiment.

 

[rpg.314]

Back in 1989, two Japanese scientists made a claim that a spinning gyro somehow "lose weight," similar to what you describe here. However, subsequent experiments done by others do not show this.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-experiments-weaken-japanese-gyro-claim-.html

And this paper

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/343509a0

suggests that the "lose weight" may caused by errors when weighting with vibrations.

Another more conclusive investigation about this is here:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6820m4638757646/

The basic rule of scientific study is, when you found something new, you need to make sure that you didn't make any mistakes. That's why we need peer-reviewed journals. Even the most brilliant team may fail to notice something that could invalidate the result of an experiment.

Don't feed him

 

[_xxx_]

LOL, who's feeding who here? You didn't even bother reading my post right above his, you shining light of pure intelligence.

 

[Davros]

I haven't tried it myself so I simply don't know

And of course unless you've done the experiment you cant possibly use your eyesight to see that the lowest ball is the non spinning one (the opposite of the claim that the spinning ball travels downwards faster)
and of course you cant use your common sense to deduce that an object producing anti gravity would not be affected by gravity more than an identical object that does not produce anti gravity.

ps: did you know a baseball with a rpm of only 1200 rpm will deviate by 0.3 metres are you still confident that the deviation of a pinball travelling at 27,000 rpm is almost negligible and couldnt make the ball deviate by 6 inches (the amount the spinning ball deviates if the ball in the pic has a diameter of 1inch)

 

[_xxx_]

Again: I didn't even look at it properly, you were the one who wanted to try it.

As for the balls, just compare the specific weight of the baseball ball, pinball ball and air and try to roughly calculate the magnitude of friction that's at work in each case. Also compare the velocities and distances involved. For me there's not even a need to bother calculating that, it's that obvious.

Unless you'd claim that the surface of the spinning ball is not polished enough and the resulting air drag creates some vortex effects, but I don't expect that much imagination from you.

Btw. the claim in that text is that the spinning ball both rises AND falls faster, right? I simply can't tell if it's a mistake or not, but it would indeed speak a lot for the vortex effect.

 

[Davros]

Again: I didn't even look at it properly,.

What!!! You put this article forward as proof that our theories of gravity are wrong why on earth would you blindly take the article as fact without reading it properly. Did you upon finding out that the group responsible for hosting the article exist to expose goverment coverups of alien ruins say to yourself "I trust these guys, they know their stuff the opposing theory of gravity must be correct"

For me there's not even a need to bother calculating that, it's that obvious.

That obvious is it, did you know a ball traveling at 30mph and spinning at 1960rpm has a force of 0.45lbs acting on it (calculations courtesy of nasa and their curveball java applet)

All that is necessary to create lift is to turn a flow of air. The airfoil of a wing turns a flow, but so does a spinning baseball. The details of how the force is generated are fairly complex, but the magnitude of the force F depends on the radius of the ball b, the spin of the ball G, the velocity V of the pitch, and the density r of the air.

F = r * G * V * b * pi / 2

 

[_xxx_]

Wtf. are you talking about? You asked for an easy to prove experiment and I gave you a link, that's all.

The article was linked just to point out the irregularities with the rocket launches, which were evidently present. The rest of it is nice reading, but nothing I'd ever take as any sort of unquestioned "proof".

Your calculation is besides the point. Again, look at the specific weight of the involved materials and how that relates to the forces calculated there. That might make a huge impact on a baseball ball, but in case of a solid metal pinball ball, it's not nearly as relevant. And all that aside, as said above it would be very easy to prove when you do it in a vacuum chamber.

All this is irrelevant here though, so can we now get back to the thread topic? This way or that, it's a clear fact that the gravity constant is not what we're looking for.

 

[Davros]

That a high speed rotation has some mysterious influence on gravity is also a _fact_ that you can prove yourself anytime, too.

(ps: bold was my doing)

ps: what is this experiment I'll give it a try

IIRC it's somewhere at the second page of that enterprise link, with high-speed rotor and a ball.

Here: http://www.libertyandlove.org/AdvancedTech/01.BruceEDePalmaNMachine.aspx#Second

Sorry to claim I just gave you a link to an experiment about gravity, I didnt really look at it. I've no idea if it proves anything all I know is you can do it at home is back pedaling in the extreme

 

[_xxx_]

My claim that it does produce strange effects is based on those launches and also some things I've seen in the area of high-speed motors and such, not this ball experiment That one was just for you as an easy experiment you can try yourself.

Thus the only one backpedaling here is you. You wanted to prove it through some experiment, I provided you such that you can build yourself for a few tenners, and now it's my fault that you don't want to do it??? Sorry but

Now please stop the pissing match if possible. For what I care, you're right and I am wrong if it makes you happy.

 

[Gubbi]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

You claim that spinning an object partly cancels gravity.

You should provide the evidence, not Davros.

Cheers

 

[_xxx_]

See the mentioned rocket launches, which are well documented. That's a clear evidence, as also the involved scientists confirmed.

As for "proof", LOL? It was Davros who doubted this, so I gave him a chance to prove his doubts.

I don't have to provide anything, since my only hard claim related to the topic was that the gravity is not a constant, which I have proven thoroughly, see the linked publications or your next best uni library, or ask the next best physics professor.

BTW I didn't claim that spinning objects "cancel gravity" but that there is some effect happening there which can not be explained with our current knowledge. Basically I personally do believe that there is something to it, but I'd like to be able to do some serious experiments on a bigger scale in order to find out if I'm just bonkers or if it really does affect something. It could just be a coincidentally clever use of weight and momentum like in some of "miraculously" working Schauberger designs where such clever tricks produce what seems like perpetual motion at first glance.

 

[rpg.314]

I don't have to provide anything, since my only hard claim related to the topic was that the gravity is not a constant, which I have proven thoroughly, see the linked publications or your next best uni library, or ask the next best physics professor.

Without so much as a single peer-reviewed publication?

 

[Davros]

Surely the fact that the enterprise crew (who's political actions forced Nasa to release of a veritable flood of startling new evidence of extensive Extra Terrestrial ruins) believe it is proof enough for you Rpg.314

BTW I didn't claim that spinning objects "cancel gravity" .

Yes you did you said that a spinning object cancels gravity and that is a fact and heres an experiment I can do at home to prove it
you know with the high speed rotor, stroboscope, video camera, and two catapult type devices to ensure both balls are launched upwards with the same force that I just have lying around

 

[_xxx_]

rpg: sorry but your dumb out-of-the-blue postings like the above are about as braindead as your questions and clearly confirm that you can't even read simple english.

I clearly explained it even for the illiterates like you that it's common knowledge and you'll find it in every physics book worth the paper its printed on. Hell I even learned that in the 7th or 8th class at school some good two decades ago.

But thanks for yet again showing your ignorance and lack of basic education (or basic reading abilities for that matter).

Davros, your cheap efforts to steer away from your big FAIL here are not helpful to your status in this discussion either. Same goes for you, go to the next library and get some physics books. Read them and come back here when you're done. It makes no sense to discuss anything with people lacking even the slightest glimpse of basic knowledge, especially when they get as loud and shameless as you are here.

 

[rpg.314]

I clearly explained it even for the illiterates like you that it's common knowledge and you'll find it in every physics book worth the paper its printed on.

I don't see a single link to a book on google books or amazon.com for that matter.

 

[_xxx_]

Well then your majesty might try LOOKING instead of dumbly waiting to be served? I mean how hard is it to enter "gravity constant lattitude" in google? Here's the first hit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

(hint: before you ask again because you didn't get it - scroll all the way down for the links to their sources)

Second hit, notice the multitude of anomalies and workarounds required: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/gravity/theory_e.php

(same hint)

And so on... I hope you don't want me to shame you even further by linking to a 8th class school book or such.

 

[Gubbi]

Second hit, notice the multitude of anomalies and workarounds required: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/gravity/theory_e.php

Do you even read the sites you link to? My guess is "no". I bet you google with gay abandon and throw the first link out there that moderately fits your perception.

In the link above, there are neither anomalies or workarounds. They are corrections to the first order approximation that Earth is a perfect sphere of homogenous density.

Cheers

 

[nutball]

I get the impression that someone is getting 'g' and 'G' confused.